I posted this in response to a posts on PlayShakespeare.com. So I'm re-posting here.
This
discussion brings up an important point about some of the authorship evidence
and that I have long had some ideas about. I’m coming from the Baconian
perspective and I have felt challenged by some of the Oxfordian arguments. I’ve
read a fair amount about the Oxfordian evidence, including Hank Whittemore’s “100
Reasons why Oxford was Shakespeare”. And my conclusions is that there is enough
evidence for me to believe that Oxford was likely involved with the Shakespeare
mystery. So then I have felt a need to explain how Bacon could still be the
primary Shakespeare author while accounting for some of the Oxfordian evidence.
We
begin with the acknowledgement that these two persons seem to have the best
overall qualifications to have been the secret Shakespeare. This conclusion is
based on the extensive and widely collected technical knowledge that the writer
Shakespeare has embedded throughout the plays and poetry in such a natural,
unforced and seemingly unconscious manner that this knowledge was a deep part
of his mental structure. In brief, Shakespeare has demonstrated impressive technical
knowledge (as noted by Ron in an earlier post) on the topics of:
Law,
Philosophy, Classical Literature and Mythology, then modern History and
Literature including French and Italian language sources and apparently some
Hebrew, Music, Medicine, Heraldry, Military and navel terminology and tactics,
Geographical exploration, especially Italy, Etiquette and manners of the
nobility in English, French, and Italian courts, Aristocratic pastimes, Botany-Zoology-Ornithology,
Horticulture, The Bible, Emblems, Witchcraft, Science and Astronomy, as well as
the Universities, especially Cambridge with its own particular vernacular and its
connection to Dr. Caius.
The
legal knowledge itself has been argued to rule out anyone not formally trained
in the law. The Stratfordian defenders have failed completely and miserably at
demonstrating that their man had any of this profound knowledge or that he
could have, even theoretically, have ever possessed much of it.
Now,
regarding Oxford’s many connections to the Shakespeare works, and that was
questioned earlier if others could have known about them, I ask that you keep
in mind that Francis Bacon had spent much time at the courts of both Elizabeth
and James. And that Oxford’s exploits and adventurous life was likely much gossiped
about among court insiders. That Lord Burghley was Bacon’s uncle and Robert
Cecil was his cousin. That he had easy access to Lord Burghley’s library as well
as that of Robert Cotton where exists the only surviving manuscript of Beowulf,
as also the great library of John Dee. That Bacon, while at Trinity College,
dedicated a philosophical discourse to Christopher Hatten on The Anatomy of the
Mind. That the Earls of Pembroke and Montgomery were his acquaintances and
business partners. Southampton was a friend of his until his imprisonment. That
Marlowe also, being a spy, was likely well known to the Bacon brothers due to
their extensive espionage activities, and that many Shakespeare related books
once thought to have belonged to Marlowe were later found to actually have been
in possession of the Bacon brothers. That Francis and his brother Anthony were
long companions and intimate supporters of The Earl of Essex. So Bacon was best
positioned and motivated, if he had been a hidden playwright, to promote Essex through
a popular play.
“Shapiro
points out that references to Ireland abound in the Henry V play, and
Shakespeare is trying to inspire the crowd to think about how glorious Essex's
victories in Ireland will be.”
https://shakespearesolved.blogspot.com/2012/09/henry-v-and-essex.html
Now,
another thing I’ve thought about, is that Baconians believe that a small group
of Bacon’s closest friends that loved literature, were in on his writing under
the pseudonym of Shakespeare. Naturally, they were sworn or obligated to keep
this a secret amongst themselves. A small group of others (the Queen, some
nobility, Ben Jonson) either knew or suspected this also. And if this was true,
then these and other insightful readers, who also had met or knew about the actor/businessman
from Stratford, would also have understood that this man couldn’t possibly have
been the real author.
But
for those in the aristocracy, especially that may have felt lampooned in the
Shakespeare works, and those in the universities, and those in the close knit
writing community, that understood this but that didn’t know who the real
author was, how could Bacon have tried to put them off the scent, or been
prepared to plausibly deny that he was the hidden author? One hypothesis I’ve
had is that Bacon deliberately put in enough hints of Oxfordian connections, including
even a clever cipher or two, that could be used to suggest Oxford’s possible authorship,
especially after Oxford had died. If this was the case then Oxford himself may
have even approved of this as long as he was not portrayed in any negative
light. Some Bacon papers have been found to have been in Oxford’s possession.
And they certainly would have known each other at Burghley’s home and at the court.
Now
a counter argument would be that such evidence actually supports Oxford as the
real Shakespeare. But this would only be true if there wasn’t more and better
evidence for Bacon, which I believe there is.
In
any case, I do believe that any argument for any possible alternate candidate
has to account for at least some of the good evidence used to support other candidates.
